Sam Douds Blog Post 4 - Climate Terror

 

The United Nations (UN) should move to classify excessive pollution as terrorism in order to more effectively mitigate against the climate crisis. In 2006, the entirety of the UN adopted a global counter-terrorism strategy that includes provisions to “address[], prevent, [and] combat” terrorism and its spread (un.org). Classifying excessive pollution as terrorism would allow for the predominant international governing body to use existing precedent to hold member states accountable for climate crimes. The UN is fundamentally opposed to climate change because - as a UN subsidiary explains - “[c]limate change threatens the effective enjoyment of a range of human rights” (ohchr.org). Under this definition, climate change threatens the UN’s core value of “reaffirm[ing] faith in fundamental human rights” as outlined in the organization’s charter. With all of this in mind, states jeopardize human rights when consciously abdicating their duties as stewards of the Earth and cannot be permitted to continue doing so. Reclassifying excessive pollution as terrorism would help to preclude them from carrying out future human rights violations and save the environment.

This argument first assumes that states can engage in terrorism. That said, according to Title 18 of the U.S. Federal Code, terrorism includes “acts that are dangerous to human life… [that] appear to be intended to influence the policy of government by intimidation… [or] to affect the conduct of government by mass destruction.” By this definition, two primary conditions qualify an act as terror. 1. The behavior is dangerous to human life. 2. The behavior aims to affect the conduct of governments. The United States and China’s failures to pass/sign the Kyoto Protocol are quintessential examples of climate terror. The United States and China knew or should have known that a failure to establish climate reform policies as the world’s first and second largest polluters would have dastardly effects on human beings around the world (Climate Trade). In essence, they behaved in such a way that deliberately placed other human beings in danger, thus checking the first condition of terror. However, as we have established previously, a dangerous act alone is not terrorism. It was the fact that China and the United States refused to sign/pass the protocol, as excessive polluters, in order to diplomatically intimidate one another that makes their rejection terror. Neither country wished to cut back in emissions and therefore fall behind economically in comparison to other states. Their refusal of the Kyoto protocol was rooted in efforts to ensure either their present or future hegemony at the sake of the environment. The U.S. and China knowingly placed humans in harms way in order to compete with one another and thereby affect one another’s policies. China effectively influenced U.S. policy as evidenced by the U.S.’s failure to pass the agreement.

The benefits of reframing excessive pollution as terror are abundant. First and foremost, equivocating climate crimes and terrorism would empower the UN to use greater force in holding countries accountable. The United Nations is also as close as the world is going to get to an objective arbiter of climate reform in the near future. It has authority in developed and undeveloped countries alike and in the case of intervention, would not necessarily be seen as continuing the legacy of western colonization/interventionism. Moreover, the beauty of using an established doctrine such as the global counter-terrorism strategy rests in the fact that the policy has already been adopted. This means that member states have largely already agreed to the terms and conditions. The global counter-terrorism strategy is also reviewed every two years making it a “living document” and open to new interpretations (un.org).

While the benefits that this proposal includes are exciting, it would also face a number of challenges. For starters, the UN frequently fails to adequately police big power countries, such as the US and China, and this pattern would be difficult to avoid under this new policy. Additionally, many states may disagree with the reinterpretation of terrorism and the means by which the UN may use to address climate issues.

In a more theoretical sense, many fear that a centralized response such as the one that I describe would be excessively authoritarian. However, I believe that coordinating a global response through the United Nations would be the most democratic, authoritarian option because it is subject to the diplomatic approval of every member state. Others may suggest that while such a drastic step sounds nice, it would likely fall in line with the lineage of perfunctory UN climate actions. In response, I think that a dramatic step such as the one that I recommend would at least demonstrate that the international community is ready to take the climate crisis seriously and if instituted properly would force it to do so.